Use Certified Mail With The IRS

I am looking at Baldwin v U.S., at least as much as I can between the September and October 15^th due dates.

In the blog equivalence of cinematic foreboding, the case comes out of the Ninth Circuit.

The Baldwins filed a 2007 joint tax return showing an approximate $2.5 million loss from a movie production business.

They filed to carry the loss back to 2005 for a refund.

They had three years to file the refund claim. The three years started with the filing of their 2007 return – that is, the year that showed the loss. They filed their 2007 return on extension, so three years later would be October 15, 2011.

They filed the refund claim on June 21, 2011.

Seems plenty of time.

They filed using regular mail.

The IRS said they never received the refund claim.

Problem.

The three years expired. Sorry about your luck, Baldwins, purred the IRS.

You know this went to court.

It went to a California district court.

And we get to talk about the mailbox rule.

There is a provision in the tax Code that timely-mailing-equals-timely filing with the IRS. That is the reason you hear (not as much now in the era of electronic filing) of people heading to the post office on April 15^th. Folks want to get that “April 15” stamped on the envelope, as that stamp means the return is considered timely filed with the IRS.

By the way, that provision did not enter the Code until 1954.

What did folks do before 1954?

They relied on common law.

Common law allows one to presume that a properly-mailed envelope will arrive in the ordinary time required to get from here to there. One would have to prove that one mailed the envelope, of course, but once that was done the presumption that the mail arrived in normal time would kick-in.

In 1954 Congress added the following:

§ 7502 Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying.

(a)  General rule.

(1)  Date of delivery.

If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws is, after such period or such date, delivered by United States mail to the agency, officer, or office with which such return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made, the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be.

Section (c) is important here:

(c)  Registered and certified mailing; electronic filing.

(1)  Registered mail.

For purposes of this section , if any return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is sent by United States registered mail-

(A)  such registration shall be prima facie evidence that the return, claim, statement, or other document was delivered to the agency, officer, or office to which addressed; and

(B)  the date of registration shall be deemed the postmark date.

Section (c) is why accountants encourage the use of certified mail with tax returns.

But the Baldwins did not certify their mailing.

They instead argued that they met the common-law standard for timely filing.

Seems a solid argument.

The IRS went low.

There are Court cases out there (Anderson, for example) that decided that the common law standard continued to exist even after the codification of Section 7502. It makes sense – at least to me - as that is what common law means.

The IRS argued that Section 7502 did away with the common-law standard, and the cases deciding otherwise were decided erroneously.

Sounds like a truckload of fine-cut bull manure to me.

Let’s load the truck.

There was a case in 1984 called Chevron. From it came the Chevron doctrine, an administrative law principle that a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute should be respected by a court.

I get the concept.

The first thing the agency has to do is show that the statute is ambiguous or unclear.

Does Section 7502 appear ambiguous or unclear to you?

We are going to need a jump to get this truck going.

Let’s introduce National Cable & Telecommunications Association v Brand X. That case has to do with the internet and whether it is an information service or a telecommunication service.

Sounds boring.

Let’s look at the Ninth Circuit’s take-away from Brand X:

But [a] court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion.”

Let me translate that word salad:

Since the prior Court decisions (let’s use Anderson as an example) did not specifically say that the statute was unambiguous, the statute is therefore ambiguous.

Huh?

So, if I do not make clear that I am not a Robert Howard sword-and-sorcery, skilled, powerful and fearless giant weapon-wielding barbarian, then it can be deduced that I am that very said barbarian?

Cool!

Brand X lets me say that Section 7502 is ambiguous, at which point Chevron kicks-in and allows me to argue that the underlying statute means anything I want it to say.

There is an aisle for this at Borders. It is called “Fiction.”

The Baldwins did not get to rely on common-law. Since they could not meet requirements of Section 7502(c), they lost out altogether. No carryback refund for them.

Downside To A Tax Election

Many tax professionals believe that computerization has led to increasing complexity in the tax Code. If one had to prepare returns by hand – or substantially by hand – the current tax Code could not exist. Taxpayers would almost certainly need the services of a professional, and professionals can only prepare so many returns in the time available – despite any wishes otherwise.

COMMENT: There is, by the way, a practitioner in New Jersey who still prepares tax returns by hand. His name is Robert Flach, and he has a website (http://wanderingtaxpro.blogspot.com) which I visit every now and then. I do not share his aversion to tax software, but I respect his stance.

That complexity has a dark side. It occurred to me as I was reading a recent case concerning tax elections.

Tax elections are no longer the province of the big wallets and the Fortune 500. You might be surprised how many there are and further surprised with the hot water in which they can land you.

Examples include:

(1)  If you are a small landlord there is an election that will allow you to deduct repairs below a certain dollar limit without second guessing by the IRS. It is called the “safe harbor small taxpayer” election, and it is available as long as the cost of your property is $1 million or less. Mind you, you can have a collection of properties, but each property has to be $1 million or less.

(2)  There is an election if you want out of first-year depreciation, which is now 100% of the cost of qualifying property. Why would you do this? Perhaps you do not need that all 100%, or the 100% would be used more tax-efficiently if spread over several years.

(3)  You may have heard about the new “qualified business income” deduction, which is 20% of certain business income that lands on your individual tax return, perhaps via a Schedule K-1. The IRS has provided an opportunity (a very limited opportunity, I would argue) to “aggregate” those business together. To a tax nerd. “aggregate” means to treat as one, and there could be compelling tax reasons one would want to do so. As you guessed, that too requires an election.

The case I am looking at involves an election to waive the carryback of a net operating loss.

COMMENT: By definition, this is a pre-2018 tax year issue. The new tax law did away with NOL carrybacks altogether, except in selected and highly specialized circumstances.

The taxpayers took a business bath and showed an overall loss on their individual return. The tax preparer included an election saying that they were giving up their right to carryback the loss and were electing instead to carryforward only.

COMMENT: There can be excellent reasons to do this. For example, it could be that the loss would rescue income taxed at very low rates, or perhaps the loss would be negated by the alternative minimum tax. One has to review this with an experienced eye, as it is not an automatic decision

Sure enough, the IRS examined a couple of tax years prior to the one with the big loss. The IRS came back with income, which meant the taxpayers owed tax.

You know what would be sweet? If the taxpayers could carryback that NOL and offset the income the IRS just found on audit.

Problem: the election to waive the carryback period. An election that is irreversible.

What choice did the taxpayers have? Their only argument was that the tax preparer put that election in there and they did not notice it, much less understand what it meant.

It was a desperation play.

Here is the Court:

Though it was the error of the [] return preparer that put the [] in this undesirable tax position, the [] may not disavow the unambiguous language of the irrevocable election they made on their signed 2014 tax return.

As the Code accretes complexity, it keeps adding elections to opt-in or opt-out of whatever is the tax accounting de jour. I suspect we will read more cases like this in upcoming years.

Our case this time was Bea v Commissioner.

Can the IRS Disallow Your Net Operating Loss Carryback?

Here is a quiz question:

            Can the IRS reopen a tax year if you file an NOL carryback?

Most tax accountants will remember the intent of IRC Section 7605(b), even if they may not remember the specific citation:

No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations, and only one inspection of a taxpayer's books of account shall be made for each taxable year unless the taxpayer requests otherwise or unless the Secretary, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary.

This language entered the Code in 1921, and its intent was and is to relieve taxpayers from unnecessary annoyance.

The question is whether it is the original year that is being reopened or whether it is the carryback from a later year that is being reviewed.

The IRS expounded on IRC Section 7605 in Rev Procedure 2005-32. The wording we are after is “reopening.” Section 2.04 of the Rev Procedure informs us that new section 4.02 is being added to define the “reopening” of a closed tax case.

The new section 4.02 states:

A reopening of a closed case involves an examination of a taxpayer’s liability that may result in an adjustment to liability unfavorable to the taxpayer for the same taxable period as the closed case, with exceptions, some of which are noted below. The Service’s review, including an inspection of books of account, of a taxpayer’s claim for a refund on an amended excise or income tax return, as well as the Service’s review of a Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, claiming a refund for an overpayment reported on a return, is not a reopening.

Someone ran face-first into this in FAA 20114701F. Here are the facts:

Taxpayer deducted a bad debt loss in Year 1. It was audited and the IRS allowed the loss. Enough time goes by that the statute of limitations for Year 1 expires. In a later year Taxpayer has an NOL, which it carries-back to Year 1. The IRS however was still churlish about that bad debt deduction in Year 1.

The FAA goes on to reason that the IRS did not pick this fight. Rather the Taxpayer did by electing to carryback its net operating loss and claiming a refund. The Taxpayer’s action allowed the IRS to “reopen” the closed year.

There was some saving grace, thankfully. The IRS decided it could deny Taxpayer’s claim for refund dollar-for-dollar – but only to the extent of the refund. The worst that could happen is that the Taxpayer would not receive any refund, resulting of course in a total waste of the net operating loss carryback. But hey, at least the Taxpayer did not have to write a check to the IRS for the audacity of claiming a tax refund.